Cited by

State v. Mosley , (noting that, where appellant objects on different ground at trial than appellant argues on appeal, it is reviewed under plain-error analysis).

“It is generally misconduct for a prosecutor to ‘knowingly offer inadmissible evidence for the purpose of bringing it to the jury’s attention.’” ().

When considering whether an error affected a defendant’s substantial rights within the context of the plain-error rule, we consider “the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“Generally, evidence is relevant and has probative value when it logically tends to prove or disprove a material fact in issue.”

See, (deter mining that no relief was warranted where defendant’s substantial rights were not affected, even upon an assumption of plain error); State v. Spann , (concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial ab sent a showing that th

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious; this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.”

See State v. Mosley , (determining that, even if plain error occu rred, relief was not warranted because the defendant’s substantial rights were not violated ).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious; this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.”

at 371-72; (d iscussing Miles and Helterbridle in analyzing the question of expert - identification testimony).

P. 31.02; d 789, 796-98, 797 n.2 (Minn. 2014) (applying plain-error test to appellate argument challenging relevance after trial counsel objected on other grounds).

If the state fails to show substantial rights were not affected, this cour t “may correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quotations omitted).

go to the weight the trier of fact should give to the testimony, 11 not to its admissibility.” 4 The jury, not the reviewing court, is responsible for weighing the credibility of eyewitness testimony; thus, “the positive and uncontradicted testimony of a victim may be sufficient by itself to support a conviction.”

d 789, 798 (Minn. 2014).

If we determine that a plain error affected the defendant’s substantial rights, we “may correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” cert denied 135 S. Ct. 1185 (2015) (quotations omitted) A prosecutor has “considerable latitude” in a closing argument.

“Rulings concerning the admission of expert testimony generally rest within the sound discretion of the district court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” -99 (Minn. 2014).

“Rulings concerning the admission of expert testimony generally rest within the sound discretion of the district court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” –99 (Minn. 2014), cert.

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious; this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.” cert.

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious; this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.” cert.

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious; this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.” cert.

Id.; –03 (Minn. 2014) (finding that, even assuming that plain error occurred, no relief was warranted because the defendant’s substantial rights were not violated).

“Rulings concerning the admission of expert testimony generally rest within the sound discretion of the district court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” –99 (Minn. 2014), cert.

“A criminal defendant has the constitutional due process right to call and examine witnesses, including expert witnesses, subject to the limitations imposed by the rules of evidence.”

“Rulings concerning the admission of expert testimony generally rest within the sound discretion of the district court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” -99 (Minn. 2014).

“Rulings concerning the admission of expert testimony generally rest within the sound discretion of the district court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” –99 (Minn. 2014); (stating that decisions about whether an expert is qualified to provide testimony and whether the testimony will assist the fact-finder are within the district court’s discretion).

(concluding that district court plainly erred by not redacting references to polygraph test from recording and transcript of police interview); (“[a]ssuming without deciding that the State’s failure to redact the content of some of Mosley’s text messages constituted plain error”); -62 (Minn. 2009) (concluding that district court plainly erred by not editing recording of police interrogation to remove r

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious; this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.” cert.